market was liberalised. A new player, ES Marketing, entered the market, which had an immediate
effect on the seed cotton price. This is shown in a tripling of the cash income from cotton for this
family. By all accounts, the high prices are continuing this year. Over the past five years, this
households has not had sufficient gains from market liberalisation to tide it through bad years,
without major consumption adjustments. If the high prices for cotton continue, this could change.

 Household 5 is male-headed, comprising five consumption units of whom three are adults.
Thus their food requirements are equivalent to 1000kg of maize a year. The family farms 2 has,
which puts it in a class with 6 percent of rural households. The family grows 0.7 ha of local
maize, 0.7 ha of hybrid maize, 0.4 ha of tobacco and 0.2 ha of groundnuts. Fertiliser and
pesticide are used. Their budget is shown in Table C7.


 Table C7. Household 5 Farm Budget


 1990/91 1991/92 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95

 Income Using Average Yields
 Local Maize (kg) 608.3 608.3 608.3 608.3 608.3
 Hybrid Maize (kg) 2757.7 1754.9 1754.9 1754.9 1754.9
 Maize Sales (kg) 2366 1363.2 1363.2 1363.2 1363.2
 Net Value of Tobacco 928.86 1357.16 827.61 3914.96
 Sales (MK)
 Cash Income (MK) 638.82 1333.73 1943.34 1468.32 5618.96

 Income Using Actual Yield Variations
 Local Maize 610.4 226.8 656.6 412.3 536.9
 Hybrid Maize (kg) 3198.8 914.9 2154.6 958.3 1280.3
 Maize Sales (kg) 2809.20 141.70 1811.20 370.60 817.20
 Net Value of Tobacco 656.84 925.55 161.11 2009.76
 Sales
 Cash Income 758.48 698.92 1704.37 335.29 3031.26

 Household 5 is a surplus maize producer, though the amount of maize sold has fallen since
tobacco has been introduced as a crop. It is assumed that the family keeps the groundnut for
consumption (In fact, the 0.2 has could be planted with any additional food crop without affecting
the overall picture). As with household 3, there is a dip in income in 1993/94 with the increase
in cost of inputs. This family probably hires in labour, which has not been included in the model,
but this is unlikely to reduce cash income by more than 10 percent. Again, this household may


C 16